plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed which is being attacked as sham and nominal or on any other ground then a Suit for declaration without asking for the relief of cancellation of the said deed is maintainable and the suit property can be valued under Section 25(d)

Citation

2013 (5) CTC 12

(L.P.Alaghappa Chettiar and another .vs.V.Janardhanan and another) and in which, para 23 reads as follows:

23. From the above decision it is clear that if the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale deed which is being attacked as sham and nominal or on any other ground then a Suit for declaration without asking for the relief of cancellation of the said deed is maintainable and the suit property can be valued under Section 25(d) of the Act and it is not necessary to value the suit property under Section 40(1) of the Act Admittedly, in the present case the plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration and there is no prayer for cancellation of the sale deed. Further, the plaintiff is not parties to the said sale deed. As per the ratio laid down in the above said decisions, only a party to the document or decree which is challenged alone need to pay the court fee as under Section 40(1) of the Act and a third party to the document is not entitled to value the suit property under Section 40(1) of the Act. If a third party to the document is required to pay the court fees as per Section 40(1) i.e., as per the market value of the suit property, then it will result in disastrous consequences.Section 25(a) or (b) or(c) also would not attract to the present case since the plaintiff did not ask for the relief of possession or consequential injunction or any exclusive right of use.Further a reading of the averments in the plaint, would show that no astuteness in drafting the plaint can be attributed to the Plaintiff is required to pay the court fee only under Section 25(d) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.